Coursework Assignment Brief

Coursework Assignment Brief Semester: E15 Module Code: PM102 Module Title: Introduction to Computing Programme Computer Science/Computer Science with Business Informatics Level: Level 4 Awarding Body: Plymouth University Module Leader Ann Healey Format: Essay Presentation: No Any special Students should use the essay structure outlined on Page requirements: 3. Word Limit: Between 1350-1650 words. Deadline date for Tuesday 15th December 2015 by midday 12pm, via Turnitin. submission: Hard copy submissions will not be accepted. Learning outcomes • Collect, analyse, present and comment upon business to be examined in data. this assessment • Identify the relationship between computer hardware and software. • Describe the most common types of software programmes and explain how they may be used to enhance management functions. Percentage of This assignment is worth 100% of the total marks for the marks awarded for module module: Assignment Tasks Your assignment consists of one task (worth 100% of the total marks for the assignment). Assignment Task 1: Essay “An actant in modern computing does not act in isolation.” Discuss. To achieve this: Select TWO computing news stories of your choice, published anytime between 01/09/2015 and 01/02/2016. Analyse these using Actor Network Theory. Your analysis should be written as an essay, and include the following points: • Describe why Actor Network Theory is a relevant theory for studying computing. • Name and categorise the actants in your stories. Describe how they are “acting” in the assemblage. • Discuss how these actions can enhance management functions. • Outline what larger issues/questions these actions raise. To achieve this, compare and contrast the viewpoints of a range of theorists and critics explored throughout the module. • Conclude by summarising how your answers relate to the statement “An actant in modern computing does not act in isolation.” Deliverables You will submit a single word processed document to Turnitin, of between 1350-1650 words. Your content will follow the structure outlined on page 3. Task 1 is worth 100% of the total marks for the module. The marking criteria is outlined on pages 4 and 5. 2 of 5 Suggested essay structure Cover Page Assignment title, module code, student name, student number and submission date. Table of Contents A list of headings and page numbers. Introduction (about 10% of the essay) ? Explain how you intend to address the question. ? What issues/topics are you going to explore? ? What argument will you make? Main body (about 80% of the essay) Use a chain of paragraphs to EXPLORE AND DEVELOP your ideas/argument. You will probably have 3 to 4 main ideas. Break each idea into paragraphs, possibly 2 per idea. Perform substantial amounts of analysis and point making in each paragraph. In each paragraph the reader is asking you to explain: ? What is this paragraph about? ? What is your argument on this? ? What is your evidence? What does it mean? ? How does it link to the essay title? ? How does it link to the topic in the next paragraph? It is not sufficient simply to describe a situation. Analysis and a critical approach are essential. Charts, diagrams and tables can be used to reinforce your arguments. Conclusion (about 10% of the essay) ? Do not introduce any NEW material here. ? Summarise your ideas/argument (you might also have done this in your introduction) ? Restate what you consider to be the main points ? Make it clear why those conclusions are important or significant. ? In your last sentence: link your conclusions or recommendations back to the title. References All the named sources you have quoted from or reproduced in your report. Please use The Harvard System for all references. Details for the Harvard System can be found on the student portal. 3 of 5 UK% Expected characteristics of your work (complements generic marking criteria marks on following page) 70%+ Critical grasp of actor network theory and some additional concepts from the module. Work includes contemporary debates, issues and discussions. Links are successfully discussed between the news stories and the computing assemblage. Accurate Harvard referencing. Overall, your work shows a critical understanding of how contemporary computing fits into the knowledge economy. 69-60% Accurate use of actor network theory and some additional concepts from the module, with some critical thinking. Adequate links between the news stories and the computing assemblage. Uses viewpoints from theorists/critics to illustrate arguments. Accurate Harvard referencing. Overall, your work shows a good understanding of how contemporary computing fits into the knowledge economy. 59-50% Basic grasp of actor network theory, e.g. actant, assemblage, connections but some minor errors. Some thought has been given to the relevance of the stories have selected to the themes of the module. You have used a small number of extra theorists and concepts delivered on the module. Harvard referencing attempted but incomplete. Overall, your work shows an adequate understanding of some of the themes of the module, and how contemporary computing fits into the technical, social and business world. 49-40% Your work identifies some actants, and how they act, but in a superficial or descriptive way. Little or no consideration has been given to the relevance of how the actants are acting. Work is poorly Harvard referenced. Overall, your work reflects a poor understanding of the themes of the module, and of how contemporary computing fits into the technical, social and business world. 39-0% 2 computing-based stories have been described in your own words rather than analysed using a theory delivered on the module. Actor network theory has not been applied as a framework for analysis, or has been applied with much confusion or errors. Work is not Harvard referenced. Overall, your work does not show an understanding of how contemporary computing fits into the technical, social and business world. 4 of 5 Generic Criteria for Assessment at Level 4 Marks: 0-25 (Fail) 26-39 (Fail) 40-49 (3rd) 50-59 (2.2) 60-69 (2.1) 70-85 (1st) 86-100 (1st) Categories Major gaps in Gaps in knowledge Threshold level. Sound, routine Good, consistent Detailed knowledge Highly detailed Knowledge & knowledge and and superficial Broadly accurate knowledge and knowledge and and understanding of knowledge and Understanding of understanding. understanding. knowledge and understanding of understanding of the the main concepts/ understanding of Subject Significant Some inaccuracies. understanding of the material, main material, main theories at this level. material, concepts and inaccuracies. the material. Some concepts and key concepts and key Beginning to show theories at this level. elements missing theories. theories at this level. awareness of the Awareness of the and flaws evident. Some flaws may be limitations of the ambiguities and evident. knowledge base. limitations of knowledge. Cognitive/ Brief and For the most part Threshold level. Issues identified Good analytical Very good analysis Logical, articulate Intellectual Skills irrelevant. descriptive. Views/ Some awareness within given areas. ability. throughout. analysis a consistent Descriptive. findings sometimes of issues. Sense of An emerging Acknowledgement of Perceptive and feature. Persuasive (e.g. analysis and Only personal illogical or argument emerging awareness of views of others. persuasive points points made synthesis; logic views offered. contradictory. though not different stances Arguments generally made within given throughout the work and argument; Unsubstantiated Generalisations/ completely and ability to use logical, coherently area. Explicit within a highly analytical reflec- generalisations. statements made coherent. Some evidence to support expressed, well acknowledgement of articuate, balanced tion; organisation Little or no at- with scant evidence a coherent organised and other stances. argument. Judiciously and communica- tempt to draw evidence. to support views, argument. supported. Arguments well- selected evidence, tion of ideas and conclusions. Conclusions lack but not Broadly valid Sound conclusions. articulated, and drawn from relevant evidence) relevance and/or always consistent. conclusions. logically developed research. validity. Some relevant with a range of Convincing conclusions. conclusions evidence. Strong conclusions. Use of No evidence of Evidence of little Threshold level. Knowledge of Knowledge of the Critical engagement Exceptionally wide Research- reading. Views reading appropriate Some evidence of literature beyond field of literature with appropriate range of relevant informed are unsupported for the level of reading, with super- core text(s). appropriately used to reading. Knowledge literature used critically Literature and non- study, and/or in- ficial linking to given Literature used support views. Re- of research-informed to inform argument, authoritative. discriminate use text(s). accurately but search-informed literature embedded balance discussion (including referenc- Academic of sources. Some academic descriptively. literature integrated in the work. and/or inform problem- ing, appropriate conventions Academic conventions Academic skills into the work. Good Consistently accurate solving. Consistently academic conven- largely ignored. conventions used evident and largely generally sound. use of academic use of academic accurate and assured tions and academic weakly. consistent, but with conventions. conventions. use of academic honesty) some weaknesses. conventions. 5 of 5